MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus State

ORDER

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.- - Petitioner Muhammad Rafique has sought for post-arrest bail in a case registered on the written complaint of Mst. Naseem Athar vide F.I.R. No. 43 dated 24-2-2012 under sections 302/201/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Mureed Wala, District Faisalabad.

2. Woeful tail of assassination of Muhammad Hanif as mentioned in the F.I.R. by accusatory is that the deceased had settled at Scotland along with his family and had sufficient property in his native village. i.e Chak No. 482-GB Jagdonwala being managed by his brother. He had come to his village and lived in the house of petitioner's co-accused Munawar Hussain and others who were stated to be relatives of the deceased whereas petitioner Muhammad Rafique was real brother of the deceased. In between the night of 21/22-2-2012 at about 12-30 a.m., Muhammad Hanif deceased was lying in a room of the house of Munawar Hussain, when accused Munawar Hussain armed with pistol .30-bore, Tanvir Hussain armed with his weapon, Zaheer Hussain, Rizwan armed with pistol and Muhammad Rafique (petitioner) along with an unknown person whose description has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and identifiable if is brought before the complainant by due deliberation in furtherance of their common intention came there, Munawar Hussain co-accused made a pistol fire shot hitting on the chest of deceased Muhammad Hanif Second shot was made by Rizwan co-accused landed near the umbilicus. P.Ws. Israr Hussain and Shuja Hussain who had come there to see the deceased viewed the incident under the light of electric bulbs. Deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Provenance for the murder was to usurp the property of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is real brother of the deceased; as per prosecution's own case, the petitioner has been shown unarmed at the place of occurrence, no overt act has been ascribed to him; he has been falsely implicated being father of co-accused Rizwan; partway investigation prosecution of the petitioner has been recommended under section 201, P.P.C. and the same has been put altogether in this case vide case diary No. 14 dated 5-4-2012 and the same is bailable. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant is not an eye-witness to the incident; three days delay without perspicuity has been shown, in these circumstances, the material existing on the file, prima facie, makes out a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner for grant of bail, therefore, instant petition may be allowed.

?

4. Learned D.P.-G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has by reverence through lashing has opposed the bail petition.

?

5. It has been submitted that the petitioner is beneficiary to the property of the deceased as being managed by him; when the deceased expressed his intention to dispose it of, then he along with his co-accused managed the murder of the deceased and on his reporting to the police as to murder of the deceased proceedings ? under section 174, Cr.P.C. were culminated and on arrival of the benighted widow from Scotland after having the knowledge of murder of deceased lodged the instant F.I.R., in this way, delay in reporting the matter is not fatal to the prosecution. Moreso, postmortem examina?tion of the deceased was carried on the following day of the incident i.e. 20-2-2012 at 4-30 p.m. implying that factum of death was conveyed to the police earlier; since no one from the family of the deceased was present, the petitioner's party attempted to destroy the evidence of murder by reporting the matter to the police prior to the arrival of the complainant in Pakistan. Further adds that during the investigation it has transpired that the petitioner himself intimated as to murder of the deceased to the police suppressing true facts but the same were brought on the file during the investigation that is why the police has added offence under section 201, P.P.C. in the instant case. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner is very much responsible for the commission of murder of deceased as he had have murdered the deceased by his Co-accused, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.

5A. Arguments have been hearkened. The record has also been gone through.

6. It has been considered expendable to deep dive in the merits of the case suffice it to mentioned that as per accusation contained in the F.I.R., the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased and as far as destruction/ concealment of evidence in this case is concerned, prosecution's own case falls within the mischief of section 201 P.P.C., the same is bailable. It has gone unchallenged that the petitioner is father of one of the principal co-accused Rizwan. In these circumstances, on account of his ' propinquity with the principal accused and being paterfamilias, false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, prima facie, the petitioner's involvement needs further probe to be made through trial. Thus, on the basis of principle of further inquiry, instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail provided his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

MWA/M-276/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.